It's hard to see how the same word used to describe Osama bin Laden could apply
to Chelsea D. Gerlach, but Judge Ann L. Aiken of the federal district court in
Eugene had no trouble legally labeling to the 30-year-old a terrorist last week
-- an "eco-terrorist."

"It was your intention to scare, frighten and intimidate people and
government through the very dangerous act of arson," Aiken told Gerlach when she
sentenced her to nine years in prison. Gerlach was part of a 10-member group
connected to the Earth Liberation front and the Animal Liberation Front.

The 10, who called themselves "the family," were convicted of destroying a
timber research center, an electrical transmission tower, a Eugene police
station and a ski resort in Vail, Colo. They caused similar damage in five other
Western states.

Two of them have been sentenced, and the rest could go before Aiken this
week.

We can't say strongly enough that we have no sympathy for their actions. They
accomplished nothing in the way of environmental awareness, instead harming the
efforts of legitimate environmental concerns. Under even the most charitable
interpretation, their actions were counterproductive, as they didn't derail the
enterprises they targeted; they only necessitated their replication - at even
greater environmental and human cost.

In fact, Ms. Gerlach herself, in showing a change of heart, told the judge
that she sees a shift to a more thoughtful approach to environmental stewardship
that cannot "be accomplished by force."

Webster's defines a terrorist as "One who utilizes the systematic use of
violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a
civilian non-combatant." In that regard, one could argue that Gerlach and her
co-defendants met the definition.

But if the term becomes synonymous with anyone who questions the cultural,
political or legal status quo as regards the use of resources, treatment of
animals or conservation, then we see trouble ahead -- and so do those who fear
that is just what this precedent will lead to.

For instance, will those who cut a chain to enter a federal forest to protest
old-growth logging -- which may resume if the Bush administration has its way --
also qualify as "eco-terrorism?"

It is one thing to punish a destructive and short-sighted group of
self-styled eco warriors. But it is quite another to attempt to demonize or
derail a legitimate -- and overdue -- thoughtful approach to resource use. Also,
there is the danger that such people could be seen as martyrs. As we know,
radicals in other parts of the world have no trouble attracting converts when
self-aggrandizement and martyrdom is part of the deal.

So, we will have to see what -- other than inflamed headlines -- this "ecoterrorism"
label will mean to mainstream environmentalists. We will be watching carefully.